Justice Leonard Steinman
Wife sought to invalidate a prenuptial agreement, while husband sought a declaration the agreement was valid based on consent. The court found, after a hearing, wife was presented with the agreement days before her wedding on a "take it or leave it" basis. It was presented after wife had given up her residence and sold her furnishings in anticipation of the wedding and moving in with husband. Further, the court found the attorney representing wife was chosen by husband's attorney, and paid for by husband, noting the attorney was informed there would be no negotiations on the agreement. The court noted if the agreement was validated, it would leave wife nearly destitute, stating the scales of the equitable balance of the agreement tipped heavily in husband's favor and to wife's detriment. The court concluded the agreement was manifestly unfair, and was the result of overreaching, which husband failed to disprove. Accordingly, the court found the agreement was unconscionable when signed, ruling it was unenforceable, therefore it denied husband's motion for judgment based on the agreement's terms and granted wife's cross-motion to set it aside.